Eastern Europe: USA ditching missile defense. (1 Viewer)

[abnrgr]

In this period of economic decline we must look to cut corners, tighten our belts and save where we can. We must scrutinize the way we are spending because that IS a critical US strategic interest. Now will we as a government decrease spending and attempt to fix our mess? Probably not. However, right or wrong the president may choose to nix defense spending in order to raise funding for another program. This program cut could be part of such an effort. I would rather it be saved and applied to the national debt but I am not the POTUS, congress or anyone of any significance. That's why I give my opinions on foreign policy on a website intended for football.

 

[Jeff Miller]

So, wait. Let me make sure I've got this straight. Prior to yesterday, when we planned to build a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland to supposedly protect Western Europe against a missile from Iran, Russia was unable to seize territory in Georgia, make Ukrainians freeze in winter, or stop ships in disputed waters. But now that we've decided not to build that defense system - which had absolutely nothing to do with Russia in the first place - the Russians are suddenly able to do whatever they want?

This rests on the assumption that the threat of a missile shield that would have no bearing on Russia's ability to attack Georgia, Poland, or the Czech Republic, or cut off gas to Ukraine, was enough to restrain Russia - even though it had already attacked Georgia and cut off gas to Ukraine while the plan to build the missile shield was still in place. Russia pretty much did what they wanted in Georgia last year - there was really nothing we could do about it, and a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic would hardly have stopped a Russian invasion of Georgia, thousands of miles away. So I'm just not following your logic at all. I think this is another case of your chronic, "Obama did it, so it must be horrible" syndrome.

no, your not following my logic. you've missed the point completely, at least the point i was trying to make, prehaps i lack the communicative skills, perhaps people can't identifty with what is in effect, cold war era style forgien policy. I don't know, but no, you didn't get my point for whatever reason. Your probably not alone either.

 

[blackadder]

In this period of economic decline we must look to cut corners, tighten our belts and save where we can. We must scrutinize the way we are spending because that IS a critical US strategic interest. Now will we as a government decrease spending and attempt to fix our mess? Probably not. However, right or wrong the president may choose to nix defense spending in order to raise funding for another program. This program cut could be part of such an effort. I would rather it be saved and applied to the national debt but I am not the POTUS, congress or anyone of any significance. That's why I give my opinions on foreign policy on a website intended for football.

In a way, it's little corners of the Internet like these, through discussions like these, where the long term future of America's role in the world and the polcies it pursues might play out, at least interms of the evolution of public support for expensive and dubious interventions.

Here at least, people debate somewhat freely.

When you go to a lot of mainstream news sites, or websites representing professional policiy organizations, ideological battle lines are drawn quite starkly. Plenty of organizations out there are dependent on liberal internationalism and intervention and the notion that intervention is good and that more of it is better to "help" the world, despite the evidence of how futilte and harmful its been to this country's long term interests.

Positions are hardened and there's just a lot of spouting of cliche's and platitudes back and forth.

"You are with the terrorists". "We must support freedom".

By and large, for a football board, debate is good and substantive here.

 

[abnrgr]

I agree that it's healthy to have debate. I just wanted to add a little levity and humilty to my post. I wanted to make sure I wasn't getting to serious and self-righteous. Humilty and listening to others is important.

 

[TulsaSaint]

no, your not following my logic. you've missed the point completely, at least the point i was trying to make, prehaps i lack the communicative skills, perhaps people can't identifty with what is in effect, cold war era style forgien policy. I don't know, but no, you didn't get my point for whatever reason. Your probably not alone either.

Sigh. I guess I'll just have to try again. Let's do it sentence by sentence this time.

It represents our relationships and commitments to states that decades of Soviet domination are trying to be independent democracies. Something the US has stood in support of since the US decided to have a global forgien policy influence.

Fair enough, I agree that we should support the former Soviet bloc countries against any Russian attempts to re-assert their old domination in the region. It'd be foolish to think that centuries of Russian imperialism died with the Communist regime. However, I don't see how a missile defense system not targeted as the Russians and that wouldn't have had any effect against an (unlikely) Russian invasion represents "our relationships and commitments" to emerging democracies.

Also, it's kind of beside the point here, but the US has historically has never paid more than lip service to independent democracies. A quick review of US policy in Latin America and the Middle East for the last century proves that pretty handily. It'd be more accurate to say that we have traditionally supported democracy when it seemed like the most effective form of government for getting our wishes done in a given part of the world.

Unlike us, these fledgling states are right next door to a country that has invaded them in the past and has shown aggressive actions in Georgia in the present, and threatening nature such as cutting off natural gas to Ukraine of they don't follow Moscow's directives.

I think I addressed this in my last post. Our missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland would not have protected them from Russia. At all.

These states have chosen to be democratic states and allied themselves with the United States, at significant risk to themselves in ways that not only include Russian aggression but also economic forces as well.

And what does a missile defense shield ostensibly directed at the Middle East that would have no effect on Russia's ability to invade Eastern Europe have to do with that? So far in this post, you haven't answered that key question.

Foreign policy isn't always about specific defense systems. Its about perceptions, commitments, and strength. In backing down to the Russians we've given these states who considered themselves our allies the impression that we will not stand by them in their time of need. That we will not honor any previous commitment made to them and that we do not have the strength to stand up to aggression weather it be Russia, Iran, or whomever it may be in the future.

I'm fairly sure that this is the centerpiece of your argument. It would make sense if the missile defense system were, in fact, designed to protect or capable of protecting the Poles and Czechs from a Russian invasion. But since the missile defense system had nothing to do with Russia, I don't really agree with you. And we haven't simply "backed down to the Russians" here. We've tabled an expensive project that we didn't have the technology to implement that was designed to counter a rather unlikely threat (Iran launching a missile at US allies in Europe). In the process, we've also made the ever-paranoid Russians happy. Oh, and as a bonus, we come off as looking willing to negotiate and a little less trigger happy - something we desperately needed after the train wreck of the last administration. I think these gains are worth annoying the Poles and Czechs for not getting a symbolic but ineffective missile shield in their countries.

Russia now has free reign to do what it wants to these states, wheather is means seizing terriroty in georgia, making people freeze in ukrain in the winter, or stopping ships in disputed waters.

As I already mentioned, Russia already had free reign in Ukraine and Georgia, and Poland and the Czech Republic are still NATO members. Getting rid of the missile defense shield has changed none of that, one way or another.

If or when we ever need these allies in the future as our interests change, they have no reason to be their for us now, since we turned out backs on them when they needed us.

I don't disagree with you here, since regardless of the actual usefulness of the missile defense shield, its absence seems to be ticking off the Czechs and Poles. At the same time, that's sort of a risk you run in foreign policy. If you support the coup-installed regime in Honduras, even if you think the coup was legit, you risk ticking off the rest of Latin America and giving fuel to Chávez, for example. As I stated above, in my opinion - and apparently in the opinion of the administration - in light of the benefits of calling off the missile defense shield, it's a risk worth taking.

Thats how politics and forgien policy play out on the world stage. Unfortunately the president in his efforts for appeasement domestically, has shown he's a novice internationally.

And, of course, this is what it comes back to in the end for you. No comment needed, as we're not going to change one another's mind on this one.

 

[abnrgr]

Tulsa Saint...I agree with your points and I try my best to remain apolitical but I just wanted to clear something up. The system can easily be redirected at Russia. More than that it also has dual use capability which is what I think troubles the Russians. It really doesn't matter though because it could never do what it is designed to do against the Russians really it was designed for rogue nations or non-nations trying to threaten Europe. Whatever the reason behind the decision to shelve the project was, I think it was the correct decision. I am just curious to see what they will in turn spend the funding on. I would hope they would save it but that won't happen.